So I finally read Dan Brown's "The Lost Symbol"

[timhau]

So help me, I think the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons were witty, crisply written, well paced, and entertaining Fantasy thrillers.

You, sir, deserve every rotten fruit you get.

 

[Shrike]

I'd like to make a witty reference to Monty Python's Killer Joke sketch, but I'll spare you.

Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer?

It's not Super Bowl night. The game that gets mentioned a lot up until no guards need distraction is a lesser play-off game, so it could be Saturday as well.

It's been a couple of weeks since I read it. In my memory there were more hints that it was a sunday.

You, sir, deserve every rotten fruit you get.

Yeah, I found the writing dull and tedious. I finished it just because I would be able to say that I had read at least one of DB's books. Otherwise I would have chucked it long before.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Admittedly, I was reading those books at the same time as I was reading Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series, which WERE atrociously written (though they had some redeeming qualities).

So it may be that Dan Brown's books just seemed brilliantly written in comparison.

GB

 

[Helen]

There are books so bad that Dan Bown's writing seems brilliant in comparison? The world is a frightening place...

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Amazon has excerpts on line. It needs an editor, and 50% fewer adjectives. And 75% fewer expository lumps. And that was just the prologue and chapter 1.

<Disclaimer: Not a Dan Brown fan so this is in no way meant as a defence>

Funnily enough, I've made almost exactly the same criticism of Charles Dickens. Evidence for the prosecution, Great Expectations (which, properly edited, would have been a quarter the length) where he spends an entire chapter describing a study and an entire page of that describing an ornament on the shelf (or desk, I forget which) which has no significance to the story and plays no further part! Being paid by the word has a lot to answer for.

Hack writer of his day, bizarrely revered now...beware the same thing doesn't happen with Dan Brown

Tin hat on and running away........

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

You know, superfluous or flowery description, isn't necessarily a sign of "bad" writing in and of itself, only if it unnecessarily bogs down the pacing of a story. And yes, some of Dickens' works do have that tendency, but he can be forgiven as he was writing in a serial format, and he paints a good portrait of his time and place.

Quite frankly, I think Dan Brown's descriptions are relatively spare and woven into the narrative quite well in The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. His prose seemed much more purple in The Lost Symbol than it did in those previous installments.

*dodges rotten fruit*

GB

 

[CmacMacmA]

I thought that The Da Vinci Code was the best, followed by Angels and Demons. However, I thought that the grand finale, the ending of The Lost Symbol was pretty average. I just think that Dan Brown took it too far. Maybe I'll have to read it again.

 

[hgc]

<Disclaimer: Not a Dan Brown fan so this is in no way meant as a defence>

Funnily enough, I've made almost exactly the same criticism of Charles Dickens. Evidence for the prosecution, Great Expectations (which, properly edited, would have been a quarter the length) where he spends an entire chapter describing a study and an entire page of that describing an ornament on the shelf (or desk, I forget which) which has no significance to the story and plays no further part! Being paid by the word has a lot to answer for.

Hack writer of his day, bizarrely revered now...beware the same thing doesn't happen with Dan Brown

Tin hat on and running away........

I wouldn't give up a single word of Great Expectations, one of the finest and most entertaining books I've ever read.

Beware that Brown doesn't become like Dickens? Did you just drop in from Planet Rand?

 

[timhau]

However, I thought that the grand finale, the ending of The Lost Symbol was pretty average.

If that was average, I just might never read another book again.

 

[jakesteele]

Does anybody have any direct quotes from Dan Brown saying that everything in the book is real?

I found this tv special to be very interesting in that I am a Mason and was fascinated by all the stuff in D.C. that most people are unaware of. Please check it out and let me know which parts are untrue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig7Vzbq1PoM

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I wouldn't give up a single word of Great Expectations, one of the finest and most entertaining books I've ever read.

Beware that Brown doesn't become like Dickens? Did you just drop in from Planet Rand?

I've had the misfortune of reading it 3 times and it was rubbish every time.

So, enlighten me. What was the point of spending an entire chapter describing someone's office / study and a whole page of that describing an ornament, when neither play any further part in the story, if it's not just to bump up the word count?

Anyway, don't worry. According to received wisdom I have rubbiish taste in literature (personally I think Shakespeare's over-rated as well) and, despite being a huge fan of fantasy fiction, I thought Lord of the Rings was a pile of over-rated, over-written pap.

 

[Cobalt]

It wasn't the worst book I ever read, but nowhere near the best. I enjoy his books as time killers when I'm not reading something quality, but he's so formulaic, there's almost no point. ALL of his books are as follows:

Protagonist leads mundane life, when suddenly they're called to do SOMETHING of drastic importance.

Antagonist, who is quite secretive and resourceful, has plot X going. Protagonist learns of plot X and needs to stop it. Antagonist needs to stop the protagonist.

PLOT TWIST SO OBVIOUS M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN FACEPALMS!

Plot X is foiled, the antagonist is dead or in jail, and the protagonist gets to enjoy marvelous sex. FIN.

 

[tiktokman]

It was fiction.

Just what was it that you expected but didn't see?

From the hype it received I expected a decent, entertaining and well written book. Instead I got tripe and soiled mind grapes.

 

[dudalb]

I've had the misfortune of reading it 3 times and it was rubbish every time.

So, enlighten me. What was the point of spending an entire chapter describing someone's office / study and a whole page of that describing an ornament, when neither play any further part in the story, if it's not just to bump up the word count?

Anyway, don't worry. According to received wisdom I have rubbiish taste in literature (personally I think Shakespeare's over-rated as well) and, despite being a huge fan of fantasy fiction, I thought Lord of the Rings was a pile of over-rated, over-written pap.

Just what the hell do you consider good literature since you don't like Dickens or Shakespeare?
Or are you just trying to be as outragous and edgy as possible?

 

[dudalb]

Does anybody have any direct quotes from Dan Brown saying that everything in the book is real?

I found this tv special to be very interesting in that I am a Mason and was fascinated by all the stuff in D.C. that most people are unaware of. Please check it out and let me know which parts are untrue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig7Vzbq1PoM

Brown plays a cute game by saying that his books are fiction, not history, but then Claims they are rooted in actual historical research.
IF you are talking about "the Hidden Masonic designs in the topography of Washington DC" theory, it;s crap. A number of individual buildings have masonic symbols, yeah, but that is along way that the Main area of DC is one big Masonic diagram.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Does anybody have any direct quotes from Dan Brown saying that everything in the book is real?

Page before the Prologue says in part:

"All organizations in this novel exist, including the Freemasons, the Invisible College, the Office of Security, the SMSC, and the Institute of Noetic Sciences,

All rituals, science, artwork, and monuments in this novel are real."

FWIW

 

[timhau]

Yup, and that 'real science' supposedly includes

weighing the human soul.

I have read about this scientific achievement before. It was in some flier distributed by a bunch of religious crackpots. They also mentioned two other scientific breakthroughs:

• An ex-atheist, currently christian scientist from Russia found out that the Chernobyl blast had no effect on born-again christians; all the irradiated dead bodies in the area were those of atheists.
• Another formerly atheist scientist had attached electrodes to the head of a dying man, to measure the electrical activity in a dying brain. When the dying man yelled "Satan, Satan!", the measuring devices went from zero to their maximum negative value. When he yelled "Jesus, Jesus", they went to their maximum positive value. This incident turned the atheist scientist into a born-again christian.

Feel free to use those in your next book, Mr. Brown.

 

[ThermionicScott]

Brown plays a cute game by saying that his books are fiction, not history, but then Claims they are rooted in actual historical research.
IF you are talking about "the Hidden Masonic designs in the topography of Washington DC" theory, it;s crap. A number of individual buildings have masonic symbols, yeah, but that is along way that the Main area of DC is one big Masonic diagram.

Yeah, he got me with the "Fact: The Priory of Sion..." thing, too.

If life has taught me anything, it's that I'm gullible, and I need to always be on my guard.

- Scott

 

[CriticalSock]

I've had the misfortune of reading it 3 times and it was rubbish every time.

So, enlighten me. What was the point of spending an entire chapter describing someone's office / study and a whole page of that describing an ornament, when neither play any further part in the story, if it's not just to bump up the word count?

Anyway, don't worry. According to received wisdom I have rubbiish taste in literature (personally I think Shakespeare's over-rated as well) and, despite being a huge fan of fantasy fiction, I thought Lord of the Rings was a pile of over-rated, over-written pap.

If I remember it right (don't have the book to hand), wasn't it a bust of a client of Jaggers that had been hung? The point was the fleshing out of Jaggers character. His serving woman being a convict is another example. It's a way of telling you the character of the man without actually telling you.

 

[hgc]

If I remember it right (don't have the book to hand), wasn't it a bust of a client of Jaggers that had been hung? The point was the fleshing out of Jaggers character. His serving woman being a convict is another example. It's a way of telling you the character of the man without actually telling you.

If we had a thread about lawyers in literature, Jaggers would be at the top of my list. That guy was awesome.